Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact beyond the annotations — the required permission to change tasks — but it is terse and does not detail scope, reversibility, or failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the discovery hint and the permission note. No padding and nothing that fails to earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter restore tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, how to find a deleted target, and the permission requirement. It is nearly complete, missing only the ref format and any note on what the restored state contains.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. Saying 'by ref' identifies the parameter's role, and the pointer to list_decisions implies where a ref comes from, but the expected format of the ref value is never specified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Restore a deleted decision') and scopes it with 'by ref'. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling restore tools (restore_item, restore_lesson, restore_project) and from delete_decision/update_decision, all without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Tells the agent how to locate the target of a restore by naming fenbs_list_decisions with deleted: true, which is the precondition for using this tool. It gives clear context but no explicit 'do not use when...' exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.